§ 6-7. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office, so help me God." Oath of Office, North Carolina State Constitution

Featured

House Bill 201 has been added to today’s calendar (June 30th) for the Senate Commerce Committee, the meeting will occur at 11:00 am. There are only 29 members on this Committee versus the 50 members of the full Senate, so NOW is the time to make your voices heard!

Below are all the contact points for each Senator → phone, email, Facebook, and Twitter. You can often interact directly with Senate members via their Facebook and Twitter pages.

Also, at the bottom of each profile is an email link which includes a pre-populated email message → just CLICK THE LINK and hit SEND!

Reach out now, BEFORE the Committee votes on H201, which proposes a wholesale repeal the North Carolina Protest Petition law.

NC Senate Commerce Committee analysis:

Comprised of 29 Senators in total

21 Republicans or 72%

8 Democrats or 28%

Members from both parties are co-sponsors of bills which repeal the Protest Petition

Senators Michael Lee (Republican – D9), Jane Smith (Democrat – D13), and Brent Jackson (Republican – D10), are both on the Commerce Committee AND co-sponsors of S300, the Senate version of the bill which also proposes a repeal of the NC Protest Petition law. Fair to assume they will be lead champions of H201 in Committee discussions.

Like this:

Featured

“Two high-profile Charlotte developers are taking the unusual step of opposing a neighboring project: Cameron and DeeDee Harris have signed a protest petition against a major proposed mixed-use development at the Colony Apartments in SouthPark.”You can read the full article by Ely Portillo via the link below:

It is exasperating that, once again, North Carolina homeowners face the prospect of losing the ability to file a protest petition in rezonings.

The most recent effort – a bill that has passed the N.C. House – represents the third time in less than three years that our state has been threatened with the loss of this most fundamental property rights tool. Make no mistake, with the exception of those in the development community, just about everyone opposes this bill. Unfortunately, for most citizens this type of legislation flies under the radar, unnoticed, until they find themselves confronted by a development proposed for their neighborhood that conflicts with current zoning.

State law currently allows adjacent property owners to file a protest petition if a rezoning is filed. If enough property owners sign the petition (state law sets the rules for how to calculate a valid protest petition), the rezoning request needs a supermajority – three-quarters – of City Council members and mayor to be approved.

The only time citizens can file a protest petition is when a developer wants to change the zoning category of a property. In other words, it is when a developer would like to change the legally adopted ordinance that says how a piece of land can be used.

That is no small thing. Property owners buy into neighborhoods with an expectation that the way the land around them is used will remain constant. When a developer is trying to change the very nature and use of a piece of land, it is not unreasonable to expect such a request be subject to a high level of scrutiny and approval from the affected citizens and their elected representatives.

In the Charlotte Observer (April 14, 2015) Joe Padilla, of REBIC, stated that the protest petition “allows a small minority of property owners to usurp what would benefit the larger community … (It) gives a small minority of adjacent property owners … unfair leverage over a property owner or developer.” Having been on the other side of Mr. Padilla in proposed rezonings for many years, I can say that that is not at all the case.

Let’s be real: The average homeowner has a snowball’s chance in hell of influencing Charlotte City Council members when it comes to any potential new development. This is true for a variety of reasons:

As far as “benefiting the larger community” goes, many projects are proposed by outside developers who don’t know the neighborhood and sometimes don’t even live in the state, but are taking advantage of a development opportunity. If there is a benefit to the community, it’s secondary to the interests of the developer.

Property owners are usually the last to know when change is coming. With time on their side, developers can make the rounds of the appropriate city staffers, planning commissioners and council members to introduce and gain support for their project. Typically, they will hire a former city planning department employee who knows how to navigate this process (a distinct advantage).

The average Joe homeowner enters into the picture just before the credits roll, and for most the learning curve is steep, to say the least. Homeowners usually have full-time jobs with little time to cram in all the relevant information that is required to present a cogent argument against a rezoning project.

When neighbors have a reasoned argument against a rezoning, such as its failure to adhere to an area plan, its inconsistency with surrounding land uses or a height that casts a 24-hour shadow, they occasionally are able to cobble together a protest petition. While this does not happen often, when it does it gives the typically marginalized homeowners a voice with both the developer and with City Council. This can often result in a mutually beneficial outcome.

Protest petitions have been in place in the United States since 1916 and in North Carolina since 1923 to prevent impulsive or improper zoning changes. According to a UNC School of Government Study in 2006, in North Carolina (of those municipalities that responded) only 6 percent of rezoning petitions filed were sufficient to require a supermajority vote for the proposed rezoning. Of those, only 5 percent of the rezonings subject to a valid protest petition (a total of four rezonings statewide) received a majority favorable vote but less than a three-fourths majority, thus failing to be adopted as a direct result of the protest petition. This study makes clear that protest petitions rarely change the outcome of a rezoning petition.

Development in North Carolina is doing just fine. As I write this, 72 rezoning petitions are on the docket for Charlotte. If history is any guide, almost all will receive approval. Maintaining the protest petition helps ensure that the few projects that are grossly inconsistent with zoning regulations will be properly vetted.

Let’s not be one of the first states in the nation to take away a citizen’s right to a protest petition. I encourage all who care about this issue to visit www.SaveNCProtestPetition.com, which provides information on reaching out to pertinent N.C. legislators. Dilworth resident Marcel Dawson created the website.

Jill Walker, a long-time resident of the Dilworth neighborhood, is active in the Dilworth Community Association and serves on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, the Dowd YMCA board and the Mecklenburg Livable Communities Plan.

WRAL – @NCCapitol (06/25/14):House OKs protest petition repeal, other reforms* Note, this article is from 2014 and does not reference either of the two bills currently in the NC Legislature. It’s included as a “book-end” to bring you up to speed with previous attempts to repeal the Protest Petition law. Although the House approved the 2014 bill, it did not succeed in the Senate.

REBIC In the Loop (03/30/15):NAIOP Members Advocate in Raleigh for Economic Incentives & Protest Petition Repeal… and one from the Real Estate & Building Industry Coalition (REBIC). It should be noted that although Representative Tricia Cotham is pictured in their article, she actually voted AGAINST H201 on March 25th. Thank you to Rep. Cotham for her efforts to defend the rights of homeowners throughout North Carolina.

Please send us any links to additional media coverage – we’ll add them to this post.

Adds the line, “In addition, the city council shall give written notice to all adjacent property owners at least 30 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing.”

Previously, H201 stated that notice was only to be published in a local newspaper 10 days prior to the public hearing. This adds a written notice by mail, 30 days before public hearing, sent only to adjacent neighbors (which often, even in dense neighborhoods, could represent only 1 or 2 written notices if a developer plans to rezone an entire block).

Rep. Meyer voted FOR H201 in today’s session.

Amendment 3 – Introduced by Rep. Avila (Wake):

On page 2, line 48, deletes “adopted” and substitutes with “initiated”.

Effectively allows existing Protest Petitions to continue through the pipeline. On May 1, language in H201 goes into effect and no new Protest Petitions will be accepted in North Carolina.

Rep. Avila voted AGAINST H201 in today’s session.

Here’s audio from today’s House session with final discussion on H201:

Note, technical issues led to a few seconds of missing audio at the end. Speaker stated final vote was 89-28.